Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2007)210CTR(Raj)553; RLW2007(4)Raj3133
Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. These two special appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dt. 14th Sept., 1994 [reported as Krishna Kumar Rawat and Ors. v. Appropriate Authority and Ors. (1995) 123 CTR (Raj) 61] in the writ petition filed by the appellant Krishna Kumar Rawat and three others in which appellant Smt. Mithilesh Kumari was a respondent. Factual matrix of the case is that petitioners Krishna Kumar Rawat, Ashok Kumar Rawat, Ravindra Kumar Rawat and Rajindra Kumar Rawat were intending buyers of a property located at khasra No. 126 of Village Durgapura in Tehsil Sanganer of District Jaipur, which now forms part of Jaipur city. This property consists of a plot area admeasuring 9,500 sq. yds/7,945 sq. mtrs. with two godowns and certain other structures. The appellant Mithilesh Kumari (for short-the vendor), the owner of the property, entered into an agreement to sale dt. 18th Dec. 1993 for sale of the aforesaid property in favour of the prospective buyers for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1970WLN563
L.N. Chhangani, J.1. This first appeal by the defendant mortgagor is directed against both a preliminary decree dated 23-7-1962 and a final decree dated 23-11-1962 passed in a suit for the realisation of mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The plaintiff Gulabchand, now dead, & represented by respondents Kanhaiyalal and Ramdas, as also by Smt. Kanta Kumari instituted a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Jaipur City, on 9-5-1957, praying for a decree for an amount of Rs. 35,799-11- and its realisation by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant-appellant mortgaged his property detailed in para 1 of the plaint on 6-5-1952 for an amount of Rs. 24, 999/-and executed a mortgage deed and of it registered on 12-6-52. The defendant agreed to pay interest at Rs. 0/12/- percent per month with six monthly rest. There was also an agreement to pay interest on the amount of interest in case the amount of interest was not paid in time. The mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975(8)WLN843
Kan Singh, J.1. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Jagdish Singh who challenges an order of be Railway Authorities regarding fixation of his relative seniority vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 5 to 14.2. The petitioner was in the set vice of the Northern Railway and posted at Railway workshop at Jodhpur The petitioner entered she service of the Railway as an unpaid Apprentice Mechanic in the year 1950 and had his training. On completion of 5 years training as Apprentice Mechanic he was appointed as a Journeyman in the grade of Rs. 100 185 wish effect from 15.05.55. He came to be promoted as a Chargaman in the grade of Rs. 150 225 on 27.6.57 He was confirmed as Chargeman in the grade of Rs. 150 225 with effect from 14-7-57, Respondents Harbans Singh was confirmed as Chargeman from 26.7.57 Kundan Lal was confirmed on 27.7.57, Shri Vallabh on 28.7.57, Pritam Chand on 9-10-57 and S.K. Chatterji on 21-6-59. Respondents Om Prakash, R.D. Avasthi, Shri Gopal Sahi, Kan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1986]61STC264(Raj); 1985(2)WLN351
S.K. Mal Lodha, J.1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board' herein), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court, which is said to arise out of its order dated 7th August, 1979, passed in Special Appeal No. 1/9/76 Bikaner :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the work of excavating gypsum from the earth involves a manufacturing process?2. The non-petitioner, M/s. Bikaner Gypsum Limited, Bikaner (assessee), was engaged in the work of excavating gypsum. For this purpose, it bought spare parts, machinery and other equipments, tyres and tubes against declaration in form S.T. 17 saying that the aforesaid goods were required for manufacturing and mining. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, by his order, dated 22nd March, 1968, held that the non-petitioner (assessee) is not a manufacturer and under Section 6C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1964 (Act No. 29 of 1954) (for short 'the Act' hereinafter), purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1987]67STC103(Raj)
Navin Chandra Sharma, J.1. The appellant, M/s. Centuary Ecka, Jodhpur, is a duly registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its registered office at 182, Balniketan Road, Jodhpur, and its branch office at Pali. This firm is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Rajasthan Act') as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Central Act'). This firm is doing business in purchasing and selling of packing materials, that is, waterproof paper (bituminised paper), the PVC bags and poly propylene bags, etc., at Jodhpur as well as at Pali. During the financial year 1978-79, the appellant-firm effected sale of waterproof paper only worth Rs. 2,32,074.50 at its head office at Jodhpur and worth Rs. 25,757.10 at its branch office at Pali and it charged sales tax from the customers at 4 per cent treating them as packing material and deposited the tax amount a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1985)ILLJ111Raj
G.M. Lodha J.1. Durante bene placito' ruled the world with waves of 'laissez faire' up to 19th century, Political as well as Industrial revolutions brought new tides of workers emancipation from exploitation resulting in new concepts of 'status', 'security of service', 'releases from bonded labour'. Not to talk of Karl Marx or Lenin, even Abraham Lincoln and Roosvelt pleaded for 'Dignity of Labour', 'Equality', Dueprocess of law, and that resulted in New Deal Legislations, Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, the Founding fathers of the great Indian constitution brought the dream of 'Ravi' true when preamble of the 'Socialist Republic of India' embodied 'Equality' of status' and 'opportunity'. Justice, 'social, economic and political' targets 'followed' by Directives and fundamental rights of equality in Article 14 and equal opportunity in services in Article 16.2. Articulation of 14 and 16 in 1948 and 43A in 1976, whether gave death blow to 'durante bene placito' is even now a billion dollar q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN65
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The petitioners in the eight writ petitions, listed above, are officers of the Rajasthan High Court, holding the posts of 'Private Secretaries attached to the Chief Justice and Judges' appointed as such by the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution of India and the rules framed thereunder by the Chief Justice. The irony of this litigation is that officers attached as private secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court should find themselves in a situation which led them to file these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking justice from the High Court, against the Chief Justice of the Court and the State Government of Rajasthan who, according to the petitioners, have not redressed their legitimate grievance inspite of repeated representations over the years. Their grievance, in short is that inspite of the fact that their duties and responsibilities as private secretaries and jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3614; RLW2008(2)Raj1084
ORDERGopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This revision petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 21-4-2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Sirohi in Sessions case No. 112/2000 whereby, while discharging the accused non-petitioners from offence under Section 413, IPC the trial Court framed charge for offences under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 120B, IPC against the accused non-petitioners. The State has preferred this revision petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 21 4-2005 to the extent the trial Court has discharged the non-petitioners from the offence under Section 413, IPC.2. It is submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the petitioner-State, that on 20-10-2002, complainant Purushottam Das submitted a written report to the S.H.O., Police Station Mandar that he had been performing worship in Warmeshwar Mahadev temple. On 20-10-2002, at about 7 a.m., he came to the temple and saw that the door of the temple was displaced an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2008)16VST387(Raj)
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of 'sada pan masala', mixed with tobacco in the brand name of Geetanjali, Zafri 2100 Gutkha, etc. The petitioner as a manufacturer is subject to excise duty and is also liable to sales tax under the State sales tax or Central sales tax, as the case may be, in respect of the transactions of sale entered by it.2. Vide impugned notification dated January 3, 2001 'zarda mixed pan masala including gutkha and churi' was added to the list of commodities on which the levy of tax under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 was extended. The petitioner is aggrieved with the levy of tax under the Act of 1999 on its product when its brand is carried into local area of State of Rajasthan for use, consumption or sale within such local area. He has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act of 1999 and the aforesaid notification issued thereunder.3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner has challenged the levy being u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1978WLN(UC)134
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who was employed in the Indian Air Force, was discharged from service w.e.f. June 20, 1972 and his grievance is that the order of his discharge is illegal and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a Combatant Airman on November 18, 1963 and he subsequently worked there in various capacities, such as Air craftsman Class II, Aircraftsman Class I, leading Air craftsman and Corporal His original appointment was for a period of nine years as a regular Airman and thereafter for six years as a reserved personnel According to the petitioner, the regular period of his engagement was subsequently enlarged to 15 years. On April 8, 1972, a discharge order was passed authorizing the Station Commander Indian Air Force Station, Sambra, to discharge the petitioner from service after allowing him to avail of the full leave which might be due to him In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a discharge certificate was issued ...
Tag this Judgment!